As of this writing, the Trump administration is putting pressure on Congress to pass the Rescissions Act of 2025, following the administration’s successful recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Senate must pass the Rescissions Act before July 18, 2025. If not, the White House will be obligated to allocate the funds as previously set forth. If the rescissions happen, at least $9 billion in funding will be canceled for HIV/AIDS programs, National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and numerous other important services.
Unpacking the Rescissions Act of 2025
Specifically, the bill would rescind funds that were provided to the State Department or the president for:
• contributions to certain international organizations;
• contributions for international peacekeeping activities;
• global health programs including several combating HIV/AIDS;
• migration and refugee assistance;
• the Complex Crises Fund;
• the Democracy Fund;
• the Economic Support Fund;
• contributions to the Clean Technology Fund;
• development assistance;
• assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia;
• international disaster assistance; and transition initiatives.
The bill would also rescind funds that were provided for:
• USAID operating expenses;
• the Inter-American Foundation;
• the U.S. African Development Foundation
• the U.S. Institute of Peace; and
• the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The proposed rescission package would reduce funding for a range of global assistance programs, including global health programs, development assistance, and migration and refugee assistance. For example, the rescission package would cut $400 million from programs to combat HIV/AIDS, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program started by former President George W. Bush. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins noted that the PEPFAR program ‘has saved more than 26 million lives’ and ‘remains a bipartisan priority of Congress.’ She further noted that, ‘Cutting funds now—funding that is aimed at preventing disease transmission—would be extraordinarily ill-advised and shortsighted.’”
On July 15, Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) announced that he and the other Senate Republicans, along with the Trump administration, are now willing to remove the $400 million cut to PEPFAR. If that holds, at least the salvaged funds would help preserve this global initiative aimed at accelerating progress towards controlling the HIV/AIDS pandemic in over 50 countries worldwide. To see a list of PEPFAR supported countries and regions, go to: https://bit.ly/4nMx6CJ
In terms of the proposed cuts to public television and radio: “The federal government is the largest single funding source for public television and radio stations. Eliminating all federal funding beginning this fall would end a multi-decades-long funding relationship that has long had bipartisan support, in part because this funding plays a particularly important role in smaller, more rural and isolated communities with limited alternatives for local news and public alerts. For example, Senator Mike Rounds has said that there are Native American radio stations in South Dakota that ‘will not continue to exist’ if their funding is cut without replacement.”
A Reflection of Trump Administration Values
On June 10, 2025, the White House issued a statement that included, in part, “H.R. 4 would rescind radical and wasteful foreign assistance spending at the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Institute of Peace amongst other foreign assistance programs. These rescissions would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and values, such as funding radical gender ideology, ‘equity’ programs, and policies that threaten our energy security. In addition, H.R. 4 would rescind federal spending on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which subsidizes a public media system that is politically biased at the taxpayers’ expense.”
House majority leader Stephen Scalise (Republican, Louisiana) has strongly championed the Rescissions Act and is known for anti-LGBTQ+ stances. The GLAAD Accountability Project notes that he voted against The Respect for Marriage Act and the Equality Act. He opposed the repeal of The U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. He opposed adding federal hate crimes protections for sexual orientation, and it is little surprise that he received a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign in its report on the 177th Congress.
While Scalise fully backs the Rescissions Act, Rounds and Collins, along with Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, were among those who expressed concerns about it during a June hearing. President Trump sent the act to Congress in early June, which started the ticking down of the 45-day clock allowed for consideration of the act. This issue of the San Francisco Bay Times comes out during the final week of that 45-day period that could result in three possibilities: the Senate could approve the act as is, modify it, or allow it to expire.
An Act That ‘Will Have Grave Implications for the Congress’
The act is a relative drop in the money bucket compared to the expenses outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill (yes, that’s really what it is called), which is now law. The bill, for example, includes more than $46.5 billion for border wall construction alone. The funds outlined in the Rescissions Act, in contrast, were already lean and meant to support democracy, global nutrition, the LGBTQ+ community, contraception access, HIV/AIDS prevention … and that does not even take into account the funds earmarked for public radio and television.
Earlier this month, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (New York) wrote a strongly worded letter to his fellow party members that captures the importance of this moment. He urged Collins and other more centrist GOP senators to reject the rescissions package and to instead work on bipartisan deals concerning appropriations for the 2026 fiscal year. Schumer warned that failure to do so would have long-lasting consequences: “How Republicans answer this question on rescissions and other forthcoming issues will have grave implications for the Congress, the very role of the legislative branch, and, more importantly, our country.”
PBS & the Evolution of LGBT Rights
Published on July 17, 2025
Recent Comments